If you are wondering what "gubmint" is, read my earlier thread, Don't vote in the Canadian Election
(By the way, I did vote in the election. The exciting story is in the other thread.)
A week or two before the election, Charles Adler, a well known radio talk show host with Conservative sympathies was trumpeting the expertise of the
Conservative Party in fundraising and deploring the lack of expertise shown by the Liberal Party in this all important political skill.
It was as if this lack of skill, shown by the Liberals was a mark of their general ineptitude and unsuitability for governing the country.
Adler is an interesting guy, to whom I enjoy listening from time to time although I don't share many of his views. But his comments on fundraising and
the connection he made between it and the suitability of the Conservative Party to govern the country, told me that he probably hadn't read Stevie
Cameron's book, On the Take
This is a very, very important book. Everyone should have two copies, in case they lose the first one and every major population center in Canada
should have a Stevie Cameron library which contains nothing but copies of this book and of the Criminal Code.
If Mr. Adler had read the book, he would know that fundraising ability, in the style adopted by the Conservative Party, as outlined in the book, is
an index of corruption
, an index of the degree to which the party using these methods is willing to divert money from the national budget to
cronies and supporters in return for contributions to the party "war chest", contributions which are a small percentage of the money to be realized by
the contributor, when the party is elected.
It's like a form of "fractional reserve robbery".
Under Mulroney, the Conservatives were kings of it. That is the period in Canadian political history that Cameron looks at and documents so carefully
in her book, On the Take
The spending that the Conservative Party did at last summer's G20 conference in Toronto just reeks of the On the Take
style of of spending
illustrated in Cameron's book. It was just so outrageous to spend 1.1 billion dollars
on a conference like that when the last one held in
Pheladelphia, cost 12 million dollars
In fact, it was so rediculous that it had an air of "dumb things we gotta do" about it, as if Stephen Harper's government were trying to fulfill a
of financial payout obligations, all in one go.
When rail lines were being closed in Ontario, it was a classical example of "gubmint", the absurd allocation of 1.1 billion of your tax dollars,
essentially to payoffs to cronies.
Now the Harper government has been elected to a majority, thanks in large part to their skill at "fundraising" (lol). In other words they have been
able to purchase
another term of office.
This amounts to "continuity of gubmint"
Continuity of "gubmint" is really an achievement of cronies, supporters, con men, crooked contractors and other assorted riff raff, including crooked
Continuity of "gubmint" is something we as Canadians, should be trying to put an end to.
The Liberal Party, of course, is taking stock.
Michael Ignatieff has resigned and will being going back to Harvard with a great addition to his resume, and further cachet
added to his
popular courses in Political Science.
Harvard is one of the greatest universities in the world and it will now be able to add another jewel to its faculty, a poly sci prof who has
actually run for Prime Minister of an important country
Canada is the neighbor that just keeps on giving.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, Liberals are dreaming "Trudeau" dreams, and sounding out Justin Trudeau, seeking his views on the situation.
Trudeau, surprise, surprise, puts his finger on the Liberal Party's problems.
Trudeau said among the challenges that lie ahead in rebuilding the Liberal party is fundraising, and he acknowledged that the Conservatives
are far better at it than Liberals.
Surely, he has been misquoted.
Surely, what he meant to say is that the Conservatives are far worse at it than the Liberals, and more successful.
But I want to draw attention to the utility
of this quotation from Justin Trudeau. It's like a compass bearing.
The Canadian people should know that any politician who admires the Conservative party of Canada for its fundraising ability, should be avoided
like the plague.
The style of fundraising employed by the Conservative Party, under Mulroney and apparently under Harper (remember the G20 spending) is a disease that
this country should be seeking to mitigate if not eradicate.
The Liberals knew they were in trouble.
Trudeau, one of only 34 re-elected Liberal MPs, said in an interview Wednesday on CBC News Network that the results were difficult to watch, but
not entirely surprising. He said the Liberal party "has been in trouble for a number of years," because it hasn't been able to connect with
"We saw this coming, although not this bad," Trudeau said.
If you intend to be just as crooked as the party you are trying to replace, you rob yourself of a major issue, a major way that you could potentially
"connect with Canadians", the reduction of corruption.
Of course, Trudeau may have been talking about connecting with a select and specific group of Canadians, with deep enough pockets, who are willing to
contribute to the party "war chest" in exchange for considerations in the awarding of contracts.
In other words, Canadians interested in "fractional reserve robbery".
I wish Mr. Trudeau would clarify what he meant by his comments, with reference to these issues.
That's it for today, class.
Class assignment, watch how the government spends your tax money, the national budget.
Things to look for:
One thing we already know is that most of the money has already been allocated
. Watch for fraudulent demonstrations of ostensible deliberations
on subjects that were decided prior to the election
, behind closed doors. Watch for looney and screwy spending choices by the government.
Remember these choices aren't just whimsical eccentricities. They are examples of calculated political patronage
edit on 4-5-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)